Protector 1.2.9 executables with egtb access

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
RaimundHeid

Re: The author's post from the Russian forum

Post by RaimundHeid » Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:21 pm

I have removed the executables and will not publish any further official releases for the time being. I am sorry for the many people who appreciated Protector and have supported me morally. Protector is just a fascinating hobby for me and it has caused much more excitement than I expected and intended.

I will continue to improve Protector and publish the sources via the Sourceforge SVN as soon as the engine has improved. Feel free to compile the sources and distribute the executables if you like. Please do not include the tablebase access code unless you have a written permission from Eugene Nalimov.

Concerning Eugene Nalimov's code: The copyright in the sources available at several places is limited to the timeframe 1998-2001 -- does this mean the copyright is still valid in 2009? -- I really don't know.

Eugene Nalimov demands a written permission but it isn't obvious how to get one. I have written several mails from different accounts to his Microsoft mail address but didn't get any answer within 3 months (except for an automated mail that told he's on vacation, 3 months ago). So the situation remains unclear to me.

Of course I will remove Protector's glue code as soon as I get a negative reply from Eugene Nalimov. On the other side I read that several other freeware authors got the permission to at least *use* (maybe not 'publish') the sources and hence I'm still hopeful.

I'm considering to add the necessary evaluation code for a decent endgame performace without tablebases but frankly spoken it's not the area I want to work on currently... Well, time will tell.

Regards

Raimund

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 32881
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: The author's post from the Russian forum

Post by Graham Banks » Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:12 pm

RaimundHeid wrote:I have removed the executables and will not publish any further official releases for the time being. I am sorry for the many people who appreciated Protector and have supported me morally. Protector is just a fascinating hobby for me and it has caused much more excitement than I expected and intended.
Hi Raimund,

is the Protector 1.2.8 that I'm using therefore still the latest official release, or is 1.2.9 still available and therefore the latest official release?

Cheers,
Graham.
My email addresses:
gbanksnz at gmail.com
gbanksnz at yahoo.co.nz

RaimundHeid

Re: The author's post from the Russian forum

Post by RaimundHeid » Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:40 pm

Graham Banks wrote:
RaimundHeid wrote:I have removed the executables and will not publish any further official releases for the time being. I am sorry for the many people who appreciated Protector and have supported me morally. Protector is just a fascinating hobby for me and it has caused much more excitement than I expected and intended.
Hi Raimund,

is the Protector 1.2.8 that I'm using therefore still the latest official release, or is 1.2.9 still available and therefore the latest official release?

Cheers,
Graham.
Hello Graham,

since all official executables contained the Nalimov code they are illegal from a strict point of view and therefore I have removed them from the Sourceforge site.

I have never tested Protector without the tablebases and for this reason I think it's best to exclude it from any tournament for the time being -- I doubt that Protector currently is capable of winning KR vs K without tablebases. Sorry, but I don't see a better solution at the moment.

Greetings

Raimund

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 32881
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: The author's post from the Russian forum

Post by Graham Banks » Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:41 pm

RaimundHeid wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
RaimundHeid wrote:I have removed the executables and will not publish any further official releases for the time being. I am sorry for the many people who appreciated Protector and have supported me morally. Protector is just a fascinating hobby for me and it has caused much more excitement than I expected and intended.
Hi Raimund,

is the Protector 1.2.8 that I'm using therefore still the latest official release, or is 1.2.9 still available and therefore the latest official release?

Cheers,
Graham.
Hello Graham,

since all official executables contained the Nalimov code they are illegal from a strict point of view and therefore I have removed them from the Sourceforge site.

I have never tested Protector without the tablebases and for this reason I think it's best to exclude it from any tournament for the time being -- I doubt that Protector currently is capable of winning KR vs K without tablebases. Sorry, but I don't see a better solution at the moment.

Greetings

Raimund
No problems. Thanks for your honesty.

Cheers,
Graham.
My email addresses:
gbanksnz at gmail.com
gbanksnz at yahoo.co.nz

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 32881
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: The author's post from the Russian forum

Post by Graham Banks » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:31 pm

Please check your pms Raimund.
My email addresses:
gbanksnz at gmail.com
gbanksnz at yahoo.co.nz

User avatar
Mike S.
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:33 am

Re: The author's post from the Russian forum

Post by Mike S. » Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:17 am

Some interfaces like the Fritz GUI and Shredder Classic can access the Nalimovs independent from the engine's ability to use them. In other words, it may be less "urgent" at least for those positions where the tablebase material is alreay reached on the board. E.g. these interfaces will switch to tbs. and mate in KBN-K or play KRP-KR optimal if the user has the tables, etc. It doesn't help during search before, but at least then.

(I'm not referring to "official" tournaments where I don't know if this type of Nalimov support is permitted.)

Another alternative for you may be the Scorpio bitbases.

They don't have the mate distances. But I use them with Bright and Toga and they seem to be effective, certainly a good endgame support for engines too. Also, the 3+4+5 piece tables are much smaller (~225 MB) so users can put them e.g. on a fast USB stick, which is useful because some engines access the 5-piece bb. from storage device, only.
Regards, Mike

RaimundHeid

Re: The author's post from the Russian forum

Post by RaimundHeid » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:44 am

Mike S. wrote:Some interfaces like the Fritz GUI and Shredder Classic can access the Nalimovs independent from the engine's ability to use them. In other words, it may be less "urgent" at least for those positions where the tablebase material is alreay reached on the board. E.g. these interfaces will switch to tbs. and mate in KBN-K or play KRP-KR optimal if the user has the tables, etc. It doesn't help during search before, but at least then.

(I'm not referring to "official" tournaments where I don't know if this type of Nalimov support is permitted.)

Another alternative for you may be the Scorpio bitbases.

They don't have the mate distances. But I use them with Bright and Toga and they seem to be effective, certainly a good endgame support for engines too. Also, the 3+4+5 piece tables are much smaller (~225 MB) so users can put them e.g. on a fast USB stick, which is useful because some engines access the 5-piece bb. from storage device, only.
Hi Mike,

thanks for your kind remarks.

I don't think Scorpio bases are a good substitute for Nalimov bases. I use them for tests with Toga and I've seen Protector saving lost positions because the Scorpio bases lack the distance-to-mate information -- Toga just shuffled his piece around from one winning position to the other but it didn't make progress and finally the 50-move-rule lead to a draw.

Another drawback of the Scorpio bases is that they need a special library for every platform and their path is not supported as a UCI default param in the GUIs I'm familiar with. That's why I didn't consider using them up to now.

It could be that Scopio bases are useful when they are combined with Nalimov bases or when the information about won positions is used somewhat more clever than in Toga. But the benefit of tablebases is still questionable for me if the program contains some basic endgame knowledge -- as is the case with Stockfish for example (and Toga as well).

Ryan Benitez
Posts: 716
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Re: The author's post from the Russian forum

Post by Ryan Benitez » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:58 am

Back when I used egbb's in Fruit they where used in eval and added a win bonus or draw score. This seemed good enough. If you are doing a GPL project Nalimov will not allow his code to be GPL. I believe the GPL license conflicts with another license.

RaimundHeid

Re: Protector 1.2.9 executables with egtb access

Post by RaimundHeid » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:45 am

SzG wrote:
RaimundHeid wrote:I read that several other freeware authors got the permission to at least *use* (maybe not 'publish') the sources
... Besides, I have never seen such a written permission ...
The permission looks like this:
Andrew Kadatch wrote: He Raimund,


Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay -- I do not check that account often.

Yes, you can. If the program is commercial I would like to ask you to send me 2 copies.

Eugene is currently not available, he'll be back after Nov. 2nd -- I'll forward your message to him.


Good luck!

-- Andrew
I received this message today. Hope is rising again. Will keep you updated ...

User avatar
Eelco de Groot
Posts: 4132
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:40 am
Location: Groningen

Re: Protector 1.2.9 executables with egtb access

Post by Eelco de Groot » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:09 am

Glad you got the permission Raimund!

One caveat though, some programmers say that the code from Eugene can not really be licensed under the GPL :( because it still remains privately owned code. That is a reason why for instance Tord did not want to implement EGTBs at least not Nalimov's code in Glaurung. Maybe you will have to consider another form of licensing? Crafty uses Nalimov code but a different license. I would not really know the pros and cons. I don't want to do difficult or anything but it's probably better to look at that now than later? I do hope you can go through with Protector!

I now read some messages in the thread again and realize Ryan Benitez already posted this above so you will already know about this.

Regards,
Eelco
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan

Post Reply